Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2021 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cramer v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Cramer v. State, 213 So. 3d 1028, 1029 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). 2021See Cramer v. State, 213 So. 3d 1028, 1029 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bairdgreen1 sentence2019In State v. Baird, 572 So. 2d 904, 905 (Fla. 1990), the Florida Supreme Court held that it was error 3 for the trial court to permit an investigator to testify on direct examination that he had obtained information that the defendant, on trial for racketeering and bookmaking, was a major gambler operating a gambling business in the area. | 1 | 1 |
Browne v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Also, “whether evidence is admissible in evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule is a question of law . . . [subject to] the de novo standard of review.” Browne v. State, 132 So. 3d 312, 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (quoting Powell v. State, 99 So. 3d 570, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1 On appeal, the State concedes error on this issue and supports a remand for the trial court to conduct a nunc pro tunc competency hearing. 2The court also denied motions for mistrial based on the use of the informant’s out-of-court statements after the State’s opening argument and again during the State’s closing argum | 1 | 1 |
Powell v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Also, “whether evidence is admissible in evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule is a question of law . . . [subject to] the de novo standard of review.” Browne v. State, 132 So. 3d 312, 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (quoting Powell v. State, 99 So. 3d 570, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1 On appeal, the State concedes error on this issue and supports a remand for the trial court to conduct a nunc pro tunc competency hearing. 2The court also denied motions for mistrial based on the use of the informant’s out-of-court statements after the State’s opening argument and again during the State’s closing argum | 1 | 1 |
Antonio Jermaine Presley v. State of Floridagreen1 sentence2018Given the circumstances here, we remand for the trial court to conduct a nunc pro tunc competency hearing. “[W]here the issue of competency was inadequately 4 determined below, a retroactive determination of competency may be possible where there are enough expert and lay witnesses who examined or observed the defendant contemporaneous with the relevant stage of the proceeding and are available to offer pertinent evidence at a retrospective hearing.” Presley v. State, 199 So. 3d 1014, 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (citing Dougherty, 149 So. 3d at 679 ). | 1 | 1 |
Roman v. Stategreen1 sentence2018Thus, on remand, if the court determines that Appellant was competent to proceed to trial, it shall enter a written order with findings.3 See Roman v. State, 163 So. 3d 749, 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bernard J. Dougherty v. State of Florida
green
1 sentence2018Given the circumstances here, we remand for the trial court to conduct a nunc pro tunc competency hearing. “[W]here the issue of competency was inadequately 4 determined below, a retroactive determination of competency may be possible where there are enough expert and lay witnesses who examined or observed the defendant contemporaneous with the relevant stage of the proceeding and are available to offer pertinent evidence at a retrospective hearing.” Presley v. State, 199 So. 3d 1014, 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (citing Dougherty, 149 So. 3d at 679 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Fowler v. State
green
1 sentence1984In Fowler v. State, 255 So.2d 513 (Fla. 1971), the court ordered a nunc pro tunc competency hearing. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.